RATIONAL AND INTUITIVE APPROACHES TO MUSIC COMPOSITION:
THE IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THINKING/LEARNING
STYLES ON COMPOSITIONAL PROCESSES
Carina Dingwall
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Music (Music Education) (Honours),
Sydney Conservatorium of Music,
University of Sydney.
2008
ii
Abstract
This study explores the idea that there are two different types of composers, those
that use a rational process of composition involving pre-planning and use of external
systems and those that use an intuitive process that involves trial and error or other
exploratory means for composing. It focuses on further understanding these patterns
of thought as they are found in the compositional processes of student composers as
well as investigating their learning preferences. The study examines the
compositional processes of five composition students from the Sydney
Conservatorium of Music selected using their results on the SOLAT (Style Of
Learning And Thinking) measure (Torrance, McCarthy & Kolesinski, 1988). After
interviewing the five participants, a model was developed that explained how
rational and intuitive patterns of thought were used at different levels. The macro-
processes of participants were found to sit on a continuum between rational and
intuitive whilst at the micro-level participants were seen to use a mixture of both
processes. The interview participants were also asked to comment on their preferred
activities for learning composition. It was found that the participants believed their
compositional processes were something that they developed themselves and they
wanted a more personal approach to learning. The findings have implications for
both teachers of composition and their students.
iii
Acknowledgements
Thankyou hardly seems like a big enough word to cover my gratitude to all of the
people mentioned below, but I it’s the best the English language had to offer.
The first thankyou goes to my amazing supervisor Dr Anthony Hood, who not only
read my drafts but was always patient, encouraging and understanding as well.
Thankyou for the three years of being a great teacher, always believing in me and
always looking out for me. I couldn’t imagine a better supervisor for my project; I
couldn’t have done it without you.
A special thanks to my fellow composition students for inspiring the study in the first
place and for all the enthusiasm and hugs that kept it going. I would also like to
thank those of you who participated in the study for your insightful comments and
willingness to share your work with me.
Thanks also to all my lecturers at the con for the things you’ve taught me and
encouragement you’ve shown me and particularly for your understanding with my
nearly impossible workload. And to my family and friends who were also a great
support.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract....................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures...........................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1 ~ Introduction........................................................................................... 1
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 2
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 ~ Literature Review ................................................................................. 5
Two Types of Composers ........................................................................................ 5
Styles in Educational Psychology ............................................................................ 6
Personality Profile of a Musician............................................................................. 7
Studying Music Learning with the MBTI................................................................ 9
Music Learning and Brain Dominance Theory...................................................... 11
Studies of Composers and their Processes ............................................................. 13
Chapter 3 ~ Methodology........................................................................................ 16
Qualitative research................................................................................................ 16
Multi-case Study .................................................................................................... 16
Measure .................................................................................................................. 17
Participants............................................................................................................. 19
Interviews............................................................................................................... 20
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 4 ~ Results .................................................................................................. 24
Results of SOLAT.................................................................................................. 24
Participants............................................................................................................. 25
v
Bella ................................................................................................................... 25
Alyssa................................................................................................................. 25
Jono .................................................................................................................... 25
Nathan ................................................................................................................ 25
Ellie .................................................................................................................... 26
Rational vs. Intuitive .............................................................................................. 26
Macro-Processes .................................................................................................... 27
Generation of material........................................................................................ 28
Development and exploration of that material................................................... 28
Putting the pieces together to make a piece ....................................................... 28
Bella – The Intuitive Approach.......................................................................... 29
Alyssa – the Rational Approach......................................................................... 30
Jono – the Rational Approach Modified ............................................................ 31
Nathan – Rational then Intuitive ........................................................................ 31
Ellie – The “I want to try the other way” approach ........................................... 32
Micro-Processes ..................................................................................................... 33
The Balancing Act.................................................................................................. 34
Metre and Rhythm: ............................................................................................ 35
Pitch, Melody and Harmony .............................................................................. 36
The Influence of Technology............................................................................. 37
Finding the Balance............................................................................................ 38
The Learning and Teaching Environment.............................................................. 39
One on One ........................................................................................................ 39
You can’t be taught how to compose................................................................. 39
Self-discovery .................................................................................................... 40
vi
Task Design........................................................................................................ 41
Chapter 5 ~ Conclusion ........................................................................................... 44
Discussion of Findings........................................................................................... 44
Rational and Intuitive compositional processes................................................. 44
Parallels to Thinking Styles ............................................................................... 45
Learning of composition .................................................................................... 46
Implications............................................................................................................ 48
References ................................................................................................................. 50
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix 1: Participant Information Statement .................................................... 53
Appendix 2: Participant Consent Form.................................................................. 55
Appendix 3: Ethics Approval Letter ...................................................................... 56
Appendix 4: SOLAT Youth Form ......................................................................... 58
Appendix 5: Interview Outline .............................................................................. 60
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of SOLAT Results ..................................... 24
Figure 2: Model of Composition............................................................................... 27
1
Chapter 1 ~ Introduction
As a student of composition at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, I made my own
informal observations of two distinct approaches to composition. Often a
conversation would begin at the lunch table discussing different processes being used
for a current composition or highlighting the way that a particular subject or
assignment suited one student more than it suited the other. These experiences were
not necessarily linked to the ability of different students but might be explained as
different styles of thinking and learning.
The notion of two types of compositional thinking began at least as early as the
1930s when Bahle identified two types of composers: a working type – who would
use preconceived plans and use rational processes, and an inspirational type – who
would be more reliant on improvisation and emotional impact (Bennett, 1976).
Swanwick and Tillman (1986) also noted the phenomenon when they characterised
the two sides of their development spiral as reflecting emotive and exploratory
aspects compared to strategic and structural aspects. The terms “rational” and
“intuitive” were first used by Moore (1990) to describe the two musical “abilities”
involved in composing. Moore describes them as:
Intuitive musical ability (IMA), primarily an intuitive, spontaneous process,
involved the creation of germinal musical ideas through exploratory means
such as improvisation. In contrast, rational musical ability (RMA) was a more
logical, rational process that involved the conscious reshaping, extending and
developing of germinal ideas … (p. 25)
This study follows on from this idea and uses the terminology of Moore (1990) as it
seems to best describe the two different approaches to composition that have been
observed.
2
In the field of psychology, there has been a plethora of different theories of thinking
and learning styles and just as many different names and categorisations for the
“variety of seemingly different yet similar styles” (Zhang, 2002a, p.25). Different
terminology has been used to describe the phenomenon of rational vs. intuitive
thought patterns. They have been labelled logical vs. emotional, thinking vs. feeling,
analytic vs. holistic, cognitive vs. associative or sequential vs. special (Kemp, 1981,
1982, 1996; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001; Zhang, 2002a, 2002b). One such theory
that may be useful in understanding the concepts is that of Torrance (1977, 1979,
1988). His SOLAT measure (Torrance, Reynolds, Reigel, & Ball, 1977) has been
used in many studies particularly those that investigate the style of thinking used by
creative people.
For educators the study of thinking and learning styles is important for understanding
how students learn and how best to cater learning experiences and instruction to suit
students from a range of styles.
Significance of the Study
Many researchers have tried to build up a profile of what personality traits including
thinking styles are common to musicians in general or to musicians specialising in
fields such as composition or performance (Bell & Cresswell, 1984; Goncy &
Waehler, 2006; Kemp, 1981, 1982, 1996). The problem with these studies from a
music educator’s point of view is that they only stand to prove that there are specific
personalities. They do not account for variations or examine how these inherent traits
affect music learning.
3
Other studies have compared students’ thinking and learning styles with their
preferences for and success at different music listening tasks and instruction in music
appreciation classes (Lewis & Schmidt, 1991; Zalanowski, 1986, 1990). Little
research has looked into the effects of thinking and learning styles on other musical
activities especially composing.
In terms of looking at compositional processes some studies have looked at the
cognitive development of music composition (Swanwick & Tillman, 1986), the
effect of task design on compositional experiences (Burnard, 1995), the format of
composition learning activities (Barrett, 2006) and more generally the sequencing of
events and processes involved in the compositional process (Bennett, 1976; Burnard
& Younker, 2004; Emmerson, 1989).
The work of Moore (1990) assumes the existence of rational and intuitive musical
processes but labels them as abilities and looks at how other thinking and learning
styles affect them. The test design for rational and intuitive abilities is based on the
ability to succeed in set tasks.
This study is aimed at further understanding the thought processes of composers
while also examining how this affects the experiences and learning preferences of
composition students. The study will identify rational and intuitive thinking and
learning styles amongst student composers and explore effects of these using a
qualitative approach that allows for an in-depth study of a small number of cases.
The findings should suggest ways in which compositional learning activities can be
4
better designed to cater for the needs of students with varying thinking and learning
styles.
Research Questions
RQ1. In what ways do the compositional processes of composition students align
with the categories of rational and intuitive?
RQ2. In what ways is there a parallel between thinking/learning styles and
compositional processes?
RQ3. How does a composer’s thinking/learning style influence their preferences
for learning how to compose?
5
Chapter 2 ~ Literature Review
Two Types of Composers
The concept, which began with Bahle in the 1930s (Bennett, 1976), that there are two
types of composers has been noticed by many other researchers. Each of the
following studies has added further to the conception of this dichotomy in working
styles.
One of the most discussed and central investigations into the cognitive development
of music composition is that of Swanwick and Tillman (1986). They collected and
analysed examples of the music explorations of children. The outcome of the study
was the creation of a development spiral. The spiral included levels of development
with each side of the spiral also representing a different way of looking at things.
One side of the spiral was characterised by emotive and exploratory aspects whilst
the other focused more on the strategic and structural aspects. It was noted that the
development of composition in children required the pendulum to swing from one
side of the spiral to the other with each level of the spiral showing a greater depth or
more developed approach.
Wiggins (1994), in her study of students engaging in compositional activities within
her classroom, made an interesting observation about two different processes that
were taking place. She uses the terms planning versus random exploration. She
defines exploration as the time when the student did not appear to be engaging in
planning but just randomly exploring on their instrument. There seems to be the
suggestion that planning is a higher order compositional process that is used by
6
children who are more experienced and more knowledgeable whereas random
exploration is the means by which the less experienced students worked.
Finally, one author who has investigated the learning styles and preferences of
composers with contrasting compositional styles is Moore (1990). Moore designed a
compositional activity that tested for Rational Musical Ability and Intuitive Musical
Ability that he called the Ability to Compose Music Exercise. In his study of year 11
and 12 instrumental students, Moore compared the results from the Ability to
Compose Music Exercise with results from two other instruments that measured
students’ learning preferences, the Gregorc Style Delineator and Edmonds Learning
Style Identification Exercise. He found that some students with an abstract random
style, as defined by the Gregorc Style Delineator (Moore, 1990; Sternberg and
Grigorenco, 2001), had a higher Intuitive Music Ability but was unable to find
significant relationships between other learning styles and rational or intuitive
musical ability. The author comments on the difficulties involved in investigating the
learning styles and processes involved in music composition and he recommends the
need for more studies to find a better way to test intuitive and rational musical
abilities amongst composers.
Styles in Educational Psychology
The difficulty with any study into thinking and learning styles is the abundance of
different, theories, classifications and measures. Research into styles was quite
popular during the 1950s-70s but there became so many different models and
definitions that the field became overwhelming (Zhang, 2002a). Recent work by
Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) has revived interest in learning style research.
7
These authors reviewed the background of research into thinking, learning and
cognitive styles as well as an overview and critique of some of the major theories
organised into three categories – cognition-centred styles, which are based on the
way subjects think and perceive information, personality-centred styles, which focus
on the impact of an individual’s personality, and activity-centred styles, which are
formed on the basis of activities people engage in. As well as this useful
classification system, these authors make the point that styles are not to be confused
with abilities.
Personality Profile of a Musician
There has been curiosity regarding the personality profile of a musician and research
has tried to discover what this might be (Bell & Cresswell, 1984; Goncy & Waehler,
2006; Kemp, 1981, 1982, 1996). Various studies have used measures such as
Cattell’s 16PF Personality Questionnaire (Kemp, 1996) to find the personality traits
of musicians in various fields of music as well as of non-musicians. Kemp reported
(1982) a distinct difference in the personality traits displayed by musicians and non-
musicians particularly in the form of higher scores for introversion, pathemia and
intelligence for musicians. Differences were found between the personality traits
strongest in musicians of different instrument families, with such findings as brass
players and singers tending to be less introverted than other instrumentalists.
The greatest level of variance in the results, however, was found when comparing the
traits of musicians that specialised in performance, composition, or classroom
teaching. This was covered further in Kemp’s (1981) study on the personality
characteristics of creativity in music as distinguished from performance in music.
8
Despite the possible distortion from an unbalanced sample, the results show that
personality traits of composers are much the same as for musicians generally but
composers are seen to display these traits at far more extreme levels than performers.
In the 1970s particularly, there was particular interest on finding the personality traits
of composers and others described as “creative types”. It was thought that this was
the key to understanding creative talent (Kemp, 1996). Based on this idea that there
are specific personality traits common to musicians that are similar to the specific
personality traits common to creative types, Goncy and Waehler (2006) designed and
tested the Creative Personality Scale (CPS). This was a somewhat difficult task due
to lack of an operational definition of creativity and resulted in a measure that
predominantly tested the problem-solving component of creativity. A second
measure that was designed and tested for the study was the Scale of Musical
Experience (SME). Results from the application of these scales to 150 students found
a significant correlation between creativity traits and musical experience. Especially
high correlations were found between creativity traits and musical experiences
involving composing or improvising. It is yet to be investigated whether musical
activities are able to encourage creative thought or whether creative thought is
inherent and has implications for a person’s ability to learn music.
Many personality studies, such as these, tend to describe the traits found in musicians
and do not look at how this affects the way they think about or learn music. In fact, it
is often not known whether these traits are the cause or effect of a person being a
musician. From a music educator’s perspective, the focus is more about how
individual differences in the form of thinking and learning styles may influence the
9
way that students learn music and go about completing musical tasks. This is why
many music education studies investigate variations in thinking or learning aspects of
students’ personalities and compare these with their preferences for musical learning
activities and the actions that can be taken by teachers to enhance learning for
students with different styles.
Studying Music Learning with the MBTI
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) resembles a personality trait inventory but
tells researchers more about how individuals process information and approach
learning tasks (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). Subjects answer questions in a self-
report questionnaire that give them a ranking along one of four scales. Extroversion-
Introversion is a scale that characterises people who are outgoing from those with
more of an inward focus. Intuitive-Sensing represents the difference between seeing
things holistically, concentrating on meaning and perceiving things realistically and
precisely. Thinking-Feeling separates people who are logical, analytical and rational
from those that are more emotional and intuitive. Judging-perceiving is the
difference between making interpretations of the environment as opposed to
depending on the information supplied by it. The indicators can be used to make a
composite score of personality but the individual scales can also be used separately,
as they have been in some music education research.
Suchor (1977) has investigated the educational implications of learning style on
music composition in a collaborative situation. She focused on the interaction of
styles according to the Myers-Briggs Judging-Perceiving dimension in group
composition activities. The twenty-four participants in her study were divided
10
according to their MBTI results into groups of four in one of three group types:
predominantly Judging (JJJP), predominantly Perceiving (PPPJ) and equal (JJPP). It
was found that the Judging predominate groups interacted more with each other, and
the piano, during a set compositional task than the Perceiving predominate groups
did. Problem solving processes were used differently between the groups though in
no particular pattern. It was found, through a questionnaire on the students’ attitudes
towards the group and how successfully they worked together, that in the groups
with higher levels of interaction, JJJPs, participants rated their groups much higher
than the members of the JJPP and PPPJ groups did. It was seen from these results
that the personality composition of groups affected the student-student relationships
within the groups as well as affected their group compositional processes as a whole.
The author makes suggestions for how these can be accommodated within the
classroom such as the need to encourage interaction or structure the task into stages.
A common area of research in the field has investigated the learning styles involved
in music listening, particularly in the setting of music appreciation classes (Lewis &
Schmidt, 1991; Zalanowski, 1986, 1990). One such study, by Lewis and Schmidt
(1991) used the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator in combination with the Music Listener
Response Scale (MLRS). The MLRS was developed by Hedden and asked questions
aimed at identifying responses to music in five categories: associative, cognitive,
physical, involvement and enjoyment. The study aimed to find whether results on the
MBTI could predict a listeners’ response to music. It found that the participants score
on the Sensing-Intuition scale had the strongest relationship to scores on the MLRS
with Intuitive types having higher scores than Sensing types did. This was contrasted
with the existing data from a previous study that found that the participants’ score on
11
the Thinking-Feeling scale had the strongest relationship with their response to
music. Although both studies had different findings, both showed that there were
connections between listener responses and their preferences for thinking.
Music Learning and Brain Dominance Theory
In similar research to that of Lewis and Schmidt (1991), Zalanowski (1986, 1990)
also investigated individuals’ learning styles in music appreciation classes. Her
choice of measure for cognitive style was that of cerebral hemisphere preference. She
cites literature that suggests that the left and right sides of the brain have different
specialised functions and that individuals have a preference for using one side or the
other, resulting in different cognitive styles. A left hemisphere orientated person is
seen to prefer analytical, sequential and logical thinking whilst a right hemisphere
orientated person is seen to prefer conceptual, spatial and creative thinking.
Zalanowski uses a particular measure originally developed by Torrance, Reynolds,
Reigel and Ball, (1977) called the Style of Learning and Thinking (SOLAT). The
instrument measures brain dominance in terms of left and right hemisphere
preference. Although it has been suggested (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b) that thinking
should no longer be described as being directly related to the physical side of the
brain in which it occurs, research using the instrument still contributes usefully to the
body of knowledge on learning styles.
The SOLAT measure has been used many times (Chesson, Munday, Tunnell, &
Windham, 1993; Keinholz & Hritzuk, 1986; Torrance & Mourad, 1979; Torrance,
1988) to investigate the styles of thinking required for creative thought. Though
12
carried out on a variety of different disciplines, all the studies have reported similar
results in that creative processes involved both styles of thinking.
Zalanowski’s (1986) first study into listening and appreciation of music investigates
the impact of instructions given prior to music being listened to and the effect of
these on the subjects’ perceived attention, enjoyment, understanding and memory of
the piece. She assigned the subjects instructions prior to listening, that required
participants to involve themselves to different extents in imagining images associated
with the listening. She then related the subjects’ preferred instruction to their
cognitive style as tested by the Your Style of Learning and Thinking test (an earlier
version of the SOLAT test used in this study), which calculated the participants’
hemisphere preference along a scale. This found that there was a higher rate of
enjoyment amongst the right hemisphere preferrers who had received imagery
instructions, especially so with programmatic music. Those with a left hemisphere
preference benefited from an abstract program. This highlighted the need for
listening instruction to be matched to the purpose of the task as well as the learning
style of the student.
In a later study, also into listening and appreciation of music, Zalanowski (1990)
chose instructions that were more closely related to the left and right hemisphere
preferences. In this study subjects involvement was encouraged by asking them to a)
follow the music mentally, b) create a visual representation, hypothesised to benefit
those preferring right hemisphere thinking, or c) write a verbal description,
hypothesised to benefit those preferring left hemisphere thinking. Subjects in this
study were categorised for hemisphere preference using the Herrmann Participant
13
Survey Form. Again, the cognitive style of hemisphere preference was determined to
be a critical variable in the attention, understanding and enjoyment of music. Right
preferrers did indeed respond better to visual involvement and left preferrers to
verbal. Through her studies, Zalanowski showed that the effect of different types of
instruction prior to listening to music was related to the cognitive learning style of
each individual.
These and other studies have shown that music listening can be described as
occurring either analytically or emotionally, rationally or intuitively. It has been
suggested that:
…if it is possible to theorise that certain types of listener are attracted to
various musical styles on the basis that their personalities reflect particular
states of mind and a predilection to think in particular ways, might not these
differences apply to composers who created music in the first place? (Kemp,
1996, p.214)
Studies of Composers and their Processes
Burnard (1995) investigated the effect of task design on the compositional
experiences of Yr 11 students. Students were set a variety of tasks that were
classified as either a prescription task that made specific demands, a choice task that
allowed students to choose from a number of specified options or a freedom task that
specified a minimum of parameters. Analysis of data from student reflections
showed that students reacted differently to the types of tasks set. Some students
worked better in a restricted environment where they were given more constraints
and problems to solve while others preferred the freedom of being able to create their
own constraints and explore their individuality. This highlights the need for task
design to be matched to individual students. Further research may be able to
14
determine the reasons why different students react differently to tasks and whether
this is related to their learning styles.
Using previously collected case study data Burnard and Younker (2004) profiled six
styles of compositional thinking. The styles are activity centred styles (Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 2001) as they are based on the activities undertaken by the individuals
whilst composing. The resulting pathways were floater to linear, serial to staged and
recursive to regulated. The study is limited in that it looks only at how students
compose and not why they work in that way. What the study does highlight is the
variety of methods that different students use to problem-solve in music composition.
Other recent studies into the learning of composition have also been far more focused
on activities undertaken during the learning process. A case study by Barrett (2006),
looked in detail at the relationship between a student-composer and composer-
teacher as the student was working on the completion of a composition. This one-on-
one set-up is a common teaching and learning situation in tertiary music institutions.
While the study does not attempt to look at the thinking or learning styles, it usefully
describes many teaching strategies that occur and highlights the collaborative nature
of composition.
In the previously mentioned study by Wiggins (1994), the author used observational
techniques in the form of video and lapel microphones on selected students to gather
data on the strategies used by the students during various different collaborative
compositional activities within her classroom. She found that the strategies fell into
three consecutive stages: initial planning, development of motivic ideas and
15
reassembling and practising. Contrary to previous studies that Wiggins discusses,
students in this had more of a focus on planning holistically that in random
exploration, which only occurred during parts of the second stage. The suggestion is
made that students should learn music and composition in a way that encourages
them to move from the whole to extracting parts and then relating these parts back to
the whole.
In an article by Emmerson (1989), composition is suggested to be a primarily aural
act. The author suggests that although ideas can come from any number of processes
it is human taste that makes decisions based on what it hears and this should not be
removed from the process of composing. He suggests a model of composition in
which ideas are tested and accepted or rejected. The composer would use an action
repertoire, a list of possible actions and outcomes, to make decisions. According to
the author the role of teaching composition is to teach tools that the composer can
use but it is the exploration and shared testing of these tools which should be the
focus of composition.
16
Chapter 3 ~ Methodology
Qualitative research
The research undertaken utilises a qualitative paradigm as the data collected aims to
investigate the realities of individuals as they see themselves and not to discover
facts or test a specific theory (Burns, 2000). Qualitative research design lends itself
well to a study, such as this, where the focus is on a person’s experiences and it can
look at intricacies that are beyond the scope of quantitative methods (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990).
Strauss and Corbin (1990) identify that “Qualitative methods can be used to uncover
and understand what lies behind any phenomenon about which little is yet known.”
(p.19). As research on the rational and intuitive processes of composers is still at an
early stage and is quite speculative, this approach has been applied in this study to
explore the phenomenon further.
Multi-case Study
A multi-case study involves the study of more than one case (Burns, 2000) where
cases are selected to investigate different individual realities. Despite the fact that a
multi-case study requires more time and effort (Burns, 2000) the benefit is the ability
to engage in cross-case analysis.
The multi-case study approach is appropriate to this study as it is assumed that each
student has a different thinking style and different experiences. The approach allows
17
for exploration and comparison of participants with different thinking and learning
styles.
Measure
The instrument used was a questionnaire based on the work of Torrance et al. (1977).
The Style of Learning and Thinking (SOLAT) measure was originally designed to
measure brain dominance. Although the idea that each physical side of the brain is
used for a different kind of thinking has been contested, the measure is still used to
categorise individual learning styles (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b). Torrance (1988) admits
that although there is no proof of a connection between the test results and brain
dominance “this does not diminish the value of the instrument for studying styles of
human information processing” (Torrance, 1988, p.17).
Zhang (2002a, 2002b) casts the SOLAT in this light. She suggests that the test
measures modes of thinking which she terms analytic for what was previously
known as left-brained dominance, holistic for what was previously known as right-
brained dominance and integrated for the use of both types (previously known as
whole-brained dominance). For the purposes of this study, it is suggested that
rational approaches are seen to be characteristic of the left-brain dominant category
and intuitive approaches of the right.
The youth version of the form (Torrance, McCarthy & Kolesinski, 1988) was used
because it was more easily available. It is not considered to be inappropriate to use
this form for undergraduate students, as they are so close in age to the age range for
18
which the form was designed. Previous studies by Zhang (2002a, 2002b) have also
used the youth form on university-aged students.
SOLAT is a self-report measure with 28 items (Appendix 4, p.57). For each item,
respondents are asked to choose one or both of a pair of statements that best
describes them such as:
I am good at using logic in solving problems.
I am good at using feelings and intuitions in solving problems.
One of the items counts towards the left scale and the other towards the right scale
while selecting both in the pair scores on the whole scale.
Torrance (1988) points out that while there is little data on the validity of the SOLAT
youth form due to a lack of studies using it, it can draw on the validity of earlier
versions of the measure that have been tested and developed. The manual lists many
studies that point towards the validity of earlier forms including studies by
Kaltsounis in 1979, Cody in 1983 and Torrance with Mourad, Ball, Reynolds and
Fraiser (Torrance 1988). He also reports on studies that have shown good reliability
statistics.
Based on their results in the SOLAT measure, participants in the study were
categorised as being dominant in a Left, Right or Whole overall thinking style. These
results were used to identify potential interview participants that were the most likely
to use rational or intuitive processes.
19
Participants
Participants were students from the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of
Sydney. All students were enrolled in undergraduate courses in which they studied
Composition as their Principal Study.
The SOLAT forms were distributed at the beginning of one of the weekly
composition seminars, which are compulsory for all undergraduate composition
students to attend. Whilst attendance on the day was not comprehensive, this could
be considered a cluster sample (Denscombe, 1998); a fairly representative sample
located in one place at one time. Participant Information Statements (Appendix 1,
p.53) and Consent Forms (Appendix 2, p.55) were also distributed along with an
invitation for interviews. A short introduction was given about the project as well as
instructions for the completion of paperwork. Students were allowed approximately
20 minutes of the seminar time to complete the forms and most forms were returned
immediately following this.
Sampling for the case studies was purposive (Burns, 2000). Survey participants were
given the opportunity to express interest in participating in interviews. Out of the
volunteers, interview participants were selected according to their results in the
initial testing phase.
Three initial interview participants were chosen. The cases chosen included the most
extreme cases on the Left, Right and Whole scales to maximise the chances of
contrast and variation between rational and intuitive processes being used. Two
subsequent participants were chosen from the remaining pool to provide comparisons
20
including one that was chosen from those that were more difficult to categorise as
being dominant in any one form of thinking. For these subsequent interview
participants, their stage in the degree was also taken into account as it was considered
necessary to have a range of experience to answer the third research question about
preferences for learning experiences.
Potential interview participants were contacted to determine a mutually convenient
time and location for a 45-minute interview to take place. Participants could reserve
the right to withdraw from this phase of the project at any time.
Interviews
Interviews are one of the major tools used by qualitative researchers to collect data.
They provide an insight into what the informant feels, perceives and how they
behave (Burns, 2000). The decision to use interviews for a research project should be
based on the desire to get a more in-depth understanding even though it involves
fewer informants (Denscombe, 1998). This study is suited to the use of interviews as
it recognises the diversity and individual nature of personal experiences and styles.
The interviews were semi-structured interactions between the researcher and
participant; a copy of this structure is provided in Appendix 5. The interview
protocol contained questions to be asked in any order as dictated by the flow of the
conversation with the participant encouraged to express their own point of view.
Prompts and encouragement were given in the form of non-verbals and minimal
encouragers from the interviewer (Burns, 2000).
21
The interviews began with a general discussion of how students would describe their
thinking and learning styles in general and specific to composition. It is recognised
that although a person may be overall dominant in a particular thinking style the
specific style they use for different activities may vary.
Results of the SOLAT measure were not disclosed to interview participants.
Participants were encouraged to share their own conclusions as to their preferred
learning and thinking styles and asked to reflect on whether they thought they were
rational or intuitive, a combination of both or something else.
The first section of the interview also asked general questions about preferences for
certain compositional learning activities. Participants were asked to describe
activities that they identified as being helpful or not helpful.
Interview participants were asked to bring copies of a recent composition and any
pre-compositional materials and drafts that they may have made whilst working on it.
These were discussed during the second section of the interview. The participants
were encouraged to describe their compositional processes with particular reference
to thought processes behind their works. This section also looked briefly at the
learning that took place in order for the work to be completed.
Copies of all materials brought to the interview were kept by the researcher. Actual
works by the composers acted as a focusing point for discussion with participants
asked to show how they turned their inspiration and ideas into the final composition.
22
Using the composition to provide examples, participants were able to more
accurately describe how they made particular decisions.
The final section of the interview was aimed at answering the third research question
about students’ preferences for certain learning experiences. This discussion was
aimed at building on previously discussed preferred learning activities, relating them
to specific experiences of learning composition at the Sydney Conservatorium of
Music. It also tried to determine whether there was an awareness of different learning
styles amongst the students.
Interviews were recorded using a handheld audio recording device to allow for
transcription at a later stage. The interviewer also took notes during the interview on
the content of responses in case the recording device failed. Special note was made
of non-verbal communications including gestures and references to the music score.
Data Analysis
The transcribed interview data was analysed and coded to discover common themes
and patterns. This followed the grounded theory approach as outlined by Strauss and
Corbin (1990). In this approach, interview data is coded into categories that are
derived from the data not predetermined. Each step of the coding process, open
coding, axial coding and selective coding represents a deeper and more abstract level
of coding. Eventually the process leads to the formation of conclusions and findings
that are grounded in the research.
23
The researcher is herself a student of composition at the Conservatorium. She is
familiar with the setting and has had learning experiences similar to the other
participants. As this research is qualitative in nature, it is expected that some of this
background knowledge will be drawn on when analysing the data (Strauss & Corbin,
1990; Denscombe, 1998). Many of the participants in the study are also known
personally to the researcher. It should be noted that this might play a part in the
participation in and interaction during interviews.
24
Chapter 4 ~ Results
Results of SOLAT
The SOLAT scores of participants in the first phase of the study reflected a range of
different thinking and learning styles present in the sample. Each participant was
given a place along one of the three scales Left, Right and Whole according to the
scale on which they scored the highest. These are presented in the diagram below.
Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of SOLAT Results
Overall, more participants displayed a right-dominant profile. The higher scores on
the Right scale can also be seen to be higher than the higher scores for left and
whole.
Interview participants are shown in the diagram in black and labelled. These
participants are described in further detail below.
Whole
Left Right
Survey Participant
Survey Participant (not dominant)
Selected Interview Participant
25
Participants
Bella
Bella is a female composer in her early years of studying at the conservatorium. She
believes that her thinking style and her compositional process are both very much
intuitive. This is consistent with the fact that she scored the highest SOLAT right-
brained score in the sample.
Alyssa
Also in her early years of study Alyssa was chosen to be interviewed in the project as
she had the highest left-brained score on the SOLAT measure. Whilst displaying
some rational tendencies, including a lot of analysis and planning, she believed that
her thinking style, particularly when composing, was somewhere in the middle but a
little on the side of intuitive.
Jono
Jono was not able to describe his thinking and learning style as rational or intuitive,
consistent with his SOLAT scores which did not show him as dominant in any style.
He brings a different perspective to the study as he is in the latter half of the degree
at the conservatorium. Jono was able to identify processes he used when composing
as being one or the other.
Nathan
Nathan is a fairly young composer in his first year at the conservatorium. He is able
to see the benefits of both rational and intuitive thought processes especially when
26
composing and does not see why he should choose one or the other. This may be
accounted for by his high whole-brain score on the SOLAT measure.
Ellie
As the results of the SOLAT were weighted towards the right-brained style it was
thought that another right-brained participant should be interviewed to balance the
sample of thinking styles. Ellie had a high right-brained score and identified herself
as having a mostly intuitive thinking style particularly when composing. As a student
in the latter half of her degree she saw the need to develop as a composer by trying
new ways of working.
Rational vs. Intuitive
The participants had some very clear ideas about how composers could catgorised
according to their thinking style. Several examples of their own (unprompted)
definitions of rational and intuitive patterns of thought are presented below:
Nathan
Some people compose entirely intuitively, “I like that sound and I like that
sound then I’ll do that sound because I like those two sounds” and that’s cool,
and then some people compose entirely rationally like some serialist guys in
my class that just put together stuff and get some numbers and go and that’s
cool too I guess.
Ellie
I felt as though it was very much there were two sides/two types of composers,
the sort of like more intellectual structured … number sequences based
composer and then there was the impulsive kind of “I think of something I
write, I play the piano” - you know there is like two different schools of
thought on composition.
From these and other observations made during the interviews, an intuitive pattern of
thought is characterised by the initial use of trial and error and listening back and
27
decisions are often made based on what the composer feels like, whereas an initial
use of planning and thinking through characterise a rational pattern of thought.
Rational decisions may be made according to the use of an external system, set of
rules or pattern. There are many examples of these among the composers
interviewed. Rational and intuitive patterns of thought could be seen at two levels of
the compositional process, macro-processes and micro-processes.
Macro-Processes
Macro-processes refer to the stages involved in the over-all process of writing a piece
of music. Despite the range of models of the compositional process already present
in the literature, none of them were found to be suitable for this study. For the
purpose of clarity here, I have designed a model of compositional process that is
flexible and reflects the interview responses of the participants in this study.
Figure 2: Model of Composition
Generation of
Material
Development
of Material
Putting the
Piece Together
Inspiration and
Parameters
Completed
Composition
28
The process involves an input which is the initial inspiration and/or task design that
prompted the composition and set some of the parameters. The output of the process
is a completed version of the composition itself.
In between there are three stages:
Generation of material – This stage involves turning inspiration into musical
ideas. This can be in the form of a melody, a cell, a structural plan, a pitch set, a
sample (in the case of electroacoustic music) and so on. It can be approached in
either a rational manner such as using the letters of a character’s name or mapping
out a star sign on manuscript (Jono) or intuitively by stringing some notes together
on a piano (Ellie) or having an idea “just pop into [one’s] head” (Alyssa).
Development and exploration of that material – This involves exploring how
the musical ideas might be used, worked together and how they can be extended and
changed, in other words how they are developed throughout the piece. A composer
using a rational approach may do this step first using systematic approaches such as
permutation (Alyssa) whereas an intuitive composer is more likely to do this as they
go along using trial and error and listening (Bella).
Putting the pieces together to make a piece – This is where the musical ideas are
assembled and joined together so that they work coherently as a piece. An intuitive
approach would involve working by ear and the composer using their own personal
judgements and emotions to make decisions (Bella). On the other hand rational
decisions could be made using a set of rules, the most extreme examples of which
include serial and algorithmic compositions.
29
In reality these are not distinct stages. They overlap, rarely occur in order and often
occur simultaneously with composers frequently moving backwards and forwards
between them.
To demonstrate further how the model works, I will describe how each of the five
composers in this study describes their process and suggest how this reflects a
rational or intuitive thinking style.
Bella – The Intuitive Approach
Personal experience was always a factor in the inspiration for Bella’s pieces. She
talked about the need to base her compositions around one central experience
possibly with a visual stimulus attached such as a childhood memory. This really
highlighted her intuitive style, something which then continued throughout her
compositional process. Bella would begin writing by going straight to the final score,
in this case in a notation program, and writing and developing material as she went.
I would put the sound into Finale and then listen back to it and then modify it.
So I sort of go to the score first I suppose, but then throughout writing it there
would be whole like minutes worth of music that I’d just end up cutting
because I was just like “nup that’s not where it’s supposed to go”. So I suppose
in that sense, I don’t have the pre – like I said I don’t plan anything before I hit
the wall but once I get to the score I’m quite happy to delete stuff if I don’t
think that it’s where it should be.
This process jumps very quickly down to the putting the piece together box in the
model and as Bella revises her work she revisits the other boxes. Bella cites time and
her lack of organisational skills as factors which influence her compositional process.
I tend to leave things til the last minute so when I do get to them I go “aah I
don’t have time to plan through all this” so I generally just end up going on gut
reaction.
30
Alyssa – the Rational Approach
Alyssa had very distinct stages of composition. She would begin finding inspiration
by listening to works by other composers and conducting research into the style she
wanted to work in. She also needed some kind of personal inspiration that might take
the form of some extra-musical idea; in the example she discussed it was things that
distracted her in her room.
Usually before I write anything there always has to be some idea that just pops
up in my head.
The next stage in Alyssa’s process involved planning and coming up with ideas
starting with the structure.
… and then I would sit down and say I would plan the structure of the piece
what I want the piece, roughly the length not really the entire length but just a
general idea … and I build this kind of structure of how the piece should be.
And then I would think “okay what ideas do I have?” and I just write them
down and I just do a list of ideas.
Following the model through, she will move to a stage of development:
… and from there I would think “okay, so what can I do with these ideas”. …
and sometimes you’ll be like, “this is an interesting idea I’m not quite sure
what instrument it’s going to go on at this point”.
And then you can see what you can do with these ideas and develop them.
Different ways of doing that from basic augmenting and diminuting, phrases or
rhythms or whatever.
All of these stages of development occur before Alyssa begins to write the piece.
This very rational approach is consistent with the SOLAT description of a left-
dominant profile as a person who discovers things systematically, sequences ideas,
creates outlines and solves problems logically (Torrance, 1988). Whilst Alyssa used
31
this rational approach to govern her macro-process of composition, she takes a much
more intuitive approach to making decisions at the micro-level.
Jono – the Rational Approach Modified
Jono summed up his compositional process in the following way:
Find the inspiration, work out some ideas and motifs based on that, juggle the
motifs around until I’ve got a good structure and each structure’s got its own
little ideas, and then try and turn that into a coherent piece.
This approach closely aligns with the stages in the model moving from top to bottom.
However, an additional stage was added that Jono referred to as “juggling”. This
stage was situated between development of material and putting the piece together
and it consisted of all three stages mixed together and occurring in rapid
combination. Jono demonstrated the juggling stage by showing me sketches which
he described as “composition by sticky note”. It was the means by which he could
take his ideas and try them in different combinations and sequences and then use that
to form the final score.
The nature of working this way meant that there was a lot of pre-planning occurring.
Jono had a large collection of pre-composition sketches and ideas and a well
documented process to support this.
Nathan – Rational then Intuitive
Nathan also had a lot of sketches and pre-planning. He would pre-plan the structure
and the accompaniment by generating material, developing it and then writing out
music according to rules he had designed. Again this process appears to align itself
with the model in sequence up until this point but he then proceeded to add to the
32
composition using an intuitive approach that included creating more material and
developing it as he went revisiting all of the stages.
I did all of the accompaniment first in pre-composition, all the functional bits
what chords I was going to use and where how long will each section go for,
what notes the melody will consist of and even the texture … When I went to
write I wanted it to be really intuitive as far as the melody … so once I had all
my rationale and structure I then just painted like a kid over the top of it all.
Ellie – The “I want to try the other way” approach
Initially Ellie presented herself as an intuitive person with intuitive compositional
processes. When asked to describe her normal compositional process she began by
saying:
Prior to this degree, I was only a writer of tonal music and it was very much, it
was very intuitive, I never wrote anything, like no structure or anything like
that, down. I would just sit and I’d think and I would play and then when I
really liked it and I thought it was finished I would then write it out.
Ellie felt that her compositional style had changed greatly due to her experiences at
the Conservatorium and that there was a certain amount of pressure to compose
according to a more structured process.
Nowadays because of the education I’ve received here, I’ve decided it’s
probably a good idea to have some idea in writing on what you want in a piece.
Bella shared similar sentiments in her interview:
I think we are taught to be very structural and we’re taught to be very logical
and to do a lot of planning, which I think to some extent has its place and
perhaps my piece could have benefited from having a little bit more structure
and knowing what I was going to do.
Ellie also saw the benefits of a more structural and planned approach to
compositional processes. In the piece that she brought along to discuss, she had made
33
a particular effort to try and pre-plan and use a rational thinking style going against
what she thought came more naturally. She explained why by saying:
This was me attempting to do something completely out of my comfort zone so
it’s completely different to how I would compose. … ‘Cause I was at a stage in
my learning where I felt I needed to try something new because I think in order
to become a better composer you’ve got to embrace all the different styles of
composition even if you’ve got one area that you’re specifically kind of attuned
to, it’s more natural for you.
Micro-Processes
Micro-processes are the decisions that are constantly being made about musical
parameters particularly during the middle three stages of composition. These
decisions are being made using either rational or intuitive patterns of thought or a
combination of both. Many of these have been described earlier. They are not
necessarily consistent and do not always match the thinking style used to determine
the compositional macro-process. Each does affect the other, for example someone
who is pre-planning pitch sets is more likely to generate and develop the material
before writing. Similarly someone who goes straight to the putting the piece together
stage, developing the piece along the way, is more likely to make intuitive decisions
based on trial and error.
Examples of intuitive patterns of thought at the micro level include participants who
described using trial and error or listened for a particular “feel”.
Bella
The first movement was very lively and you could almost dance to it, it was
sort of very alive I suppose. And the second movement I cut the tempo in half
and I introduced this really dissonant harmonic quality. Not because I went
“ooh I’m going to use a different mode” or whatever, but because I was just,
hey, just trial and error and when I put that natural in there it was a really
disconcerting sound and at first I was like “ooh that was really hard”, it’s not
hard to listen to but it’s not what I expected and I really like that, that I didn’t
expect it but that it grew on me the more I listened to it.
34
Ellie
I just created a chord on the guitar that I thought sounded really nice or really
interesting.
Why did I decide to put them in? because I thought it created a very interesting
tone colour. And also just an interesting sound in the piece.
There were also several examples of planning and thinking through amongst
interview participants. Rational decisions using external systems, sets of rules and
patterns were evident.
Jono
I took images of constellations and basically laid them out on manuscript paper
with different arrangements and used those to determine pitches that I used. So
I ended up with little motifs related to different star signs and then that kind of
governs the whole structure of the work as well as the motivic thing inside.
…because I was drawing on a text I said “well, I’m going to take the letters of
this character’s name and use those to create a musical motif and as the
structure of the whole piece and to guide the harmonies that I’ve used”.
Alyssa
… that’s the whole thing that holds the piece together, that just one rhythmic
idea. Whether or not it’s permutated, moved around, augmented, diminuted,
it’s there.
Ellie
I assigned a number to a note and then when I went through the notes that
didn’t have a number I’d just go “okay this note can share this number”.
The Balancing Act
In practice the two categories of rational and intuitive are not as defined and
separable as they seem. Often decisions that are made intuitively are justified later
using rational processes or may be analysed and applied again in a rational manner.
Bella
So I suppose I like to have a musical idea and I like to back it up, I don’t like to
have just a straight idea out in the ether. I do like to put it in different parts and
35
transform it and harmonise it different ways and develop it and that’s my way
of justifying it.
In the same way, when material has been developed or pre-planned rationally,
composers will balance the process by exercising a certain amount of freedom and
intuitiveness when applying it.
To illustrate this it is useful to look at some of the musical parameters that composers
are making decisions about and compare the different approaches taken by some of
the composers in the study.
Metre and Rhythm:
Bella had a very intuitive approach to metre originally. Using Finale as a
compositional tool she could have immediate auditory feedback. As she listened
back to her music she felt the need to change time signature when she intuitively
reached a point where she had felt it had “run out of fuel”. Through a process of trial
and error and listening back she discovered what she liked. As the process continued
though, she was able to analyse what it was that she was doing and used that
information to guide further decisions.
… the deal with the time signature changes was, I have a seven-eight bar and
it’s divided 3-2-2 and so each of the time signatures that it changes to are
derivations of that seven eight. So the five-eight was just 3-2 and then the six-
eight is kind of like 3-3 and then there’s like more and more and more over
here [refers to score] etc.
Interviewer: How did you decide?
It sounded right. I would put it in and I would get to the point where I’d be
listening to it and I’m like “yep I can feel where the beginning of the bar is;
yep I can feel where the beginning of the bar is; yep now this is starting to get
old; okay, I need to throw something in there”. The five-eight was really great
for me because it’s just sort of one lot of two so it sort of has a feeling of
skipping over itself, which I really liked the sound of. And then the six-eight
bars were really good too because the first set of 1-2-3 is what you expect and
36
then the second set of 1-2-3 feels okay until you get to the last quaver and by
the time you’ve realised something’s wrong you’ve gone into the next bar. So
it’s sort of like displacing the accent by one quaver. But to me it just had a
really lilting feel and I really liked that. But I can understand why it worked as
well, I suppose.
Ellie approached metre from a rational pattern of thought by using a system to pre-
plan the metric changes, but she soon felt herself slipping back into the intuitive style
of thinking that she felt more comfortable with to develop the rhythms.
I used pi, the number sequence, not all of it obviously. I used about 50 of the
decimal point in it just to help create pitches and also ideas and also some
metres which is just like every bar has a different metre change.
The rhythm just came – I find time signatures do give a sense of pulse so if
you’re in 7/8, 1-2,1-2,1-2-3, so you could say that the time signatures in a sense
shaped - I’m not the most rhythmical person, I don’t come up with a rhythm
that’s going to be used later. I usually come up with it on the spot.
There was a lot of pre-planning but it ended up being quite intuitive in the end
anyway. There’s still basic notes and the different time signatures for pi remain
there but I just can’t stick to something like that.
Pitch, Melody and Harmony
Jono had many interesting methods for generating pitch material (some of these have
been mentioned previously such as using letters from a character’s name). In the
work that he brought to the interview to discuss, Jono found his pitches using a
rational approach by transcribing sounds but harmonised them intuitively.
So there you’ve got little traces of things that I’ve taken from the audio
recording, and then played at the piano, worked out pitches for and then tried to
harmonise or tried to put together in ways that will work for a whole section.
Jono did however admit to using the alternative strategy sometimes, making the point
that the same composer may not always be consistent in the way that they make
decisions at the micro level, sometimes taking one approach and sometimes the
other.
37
Other times I might get stuck and I might say “okay, I need a melody and then
we can see where we go with that”. So it might be an intuitive approach just
creating a melody to start off with but then I use a more rational approach to
how I deal with it later.
The Influence of Technology
Creating music using a computer often had an effect on the use of rational and
intuitive processes at the macro and micro levels.
When writing an electroacoustic piece the macro-process often has to be sequenced
rationally: collect samples, modify samples then put samples together. But at the
micro level the decisions have to be made using intuitive processes. Bella described
her frustration at having to work this way:
… but I find with electroacoustic sometimes I’ll stick a sound in the computer
and I’ll be like “I don’t know what this is going to sound like” and I’ll listen to
it and it’s bad and I don’t know how to fix it and I just feel like I’m just
shooting in the dark.
On the other side is the process used to create an algorithmic composition on Max
MSP. Although at the macro level a composer must start with putting the piece
together and then let the piece generate the material Jono described how the process
required a lot more rational thinking at the micro level:
When you’re dealing with something like Max MSP, so algorithmic
composition, then it really is a mental planning out, rational thing which I
enjoyed a lot … It’s the sort of thing where you have to sit down beforehand
and really think about how you’re going to plan out how the piece, or how the
object it is that you’re making, is going to work. Because otherwise, if you just
go in blindly, yeah you can get something that works but a lot of the time it
will just be a real big mess.
38
Finding the Balance
It seemed to be that it was actually necessary to use both rational and intuitive
patterns of thought during the composition process and that the act of composing
involved finding the balance. The composers who participated in this study seemed
to be aware of the fact that they were balancing the two patterns of thought and
conscious of the fact that they needed to use both.
Nathan
I set up parameters for my composition using a rationale and then as I go
through my composition I just write what’s intuitive around the parameters.
Sometimes I’ll favour the parameters because they yield good things,
sometimes I’ll favour intuition but not at expense of overall rationale.
Ellie
Part of my intuitiveness did come through towards the end of when I was
writing it because I did kind of break a few of the rules that I had so carefully
set up. I was going “this is going to be a very structured piece with pi and I’m
going to be very strict” but in the end I was like, “you know what? this sounds
cooler, I’m just going to put this in, it’s still kind of using the concept I have.” I
think a piece shouldn’t be halted, not if something sounds really good or you
really like the sound of something that is not quite what you planned. Like if
it’s a serial piece but you’ve reached a point in the serial music where you’re
like “I could go somewhere else and it would sound really cool but it won’t be
strict to my twelve tone orderings” – if that’s how it is I don’t think it should be
stopped. I think you should just keep writing like that, you should become
intuitive.
Bella went a step further and referred to a comment that one of her lecturers had
made:
One of the Stockhausen pieces that we looked at was marked out into specific
segments of time and he sort of held it up more or less as a model. And he was
like “look, it’s dangerous, you’ve got to have an audio idea because you’ve got
to have something to put into that time”, but he was very set on having a
structure in the piece.
Jono summed up the difficulties that composers had finding the balance and their
constant struggle between using rational and intuitive processes by saying:
39
You’ve got to consider what is it that is going to make this piece function well
but [also] what is it that’s going to make this piece sound good? So it’s like
brain versus ear, passions? I don’t know, brain versus heart?
The Learning and Teaching Environment
One on One
With each individual student having a different approach to composition and using
different processes it must be difficult to find a learning and teaching environment
that can support all of them. This is where the students indicate that one on one
teaching is most helpful. It allows the teacher to adjust to each individual’s thinking
style.
Alyssa
I think the staff are quite flexible depending on student to student, they can
adjust.
It is also seen as useful because it allows for interaction and direct and relevant
feedback.
Jono
Composition major lessons where you’ve got one on one lessons, again really
useful because you’ve got someone who can provide hopefully objective
feedback.
You can’t be taught how to compose
Ellie made the comment that “Composition is also a very personal thing.” Other
participants similarly felt that their compositional processes were not something that
was taught, that it was in fact an innate ability.
Jono
So in that sense perhaps the general concept of playing around with your
motivic material is something that’s intuitive something that’s I suppose
inherent in your reaction to listening to music and trying to emulate it or trying
to create something of your own that functions in a similar way.
40
Alyssa
The way that they work, I think that varies from person to person. It’s
something that you can’t learn, it’s more of something that you develop and
everyone does that in different way.
What can be taught are the skills and tools that are needed to create music. Students
found that some formal instruction was useful in learning the theory but they were
able to apply it to their own composition themselves.
Ellie
However, there are many different elements of composition, so for example
I’m doing orchestration this semester. I’m finding that very daunting because
I’ve never composed for that before. So in that regard I like having a teacher
there to give me pointers on orchestration. So it’s not so much really about the
composing but then again you can say orchestration is composing - I would say
that it is - but it’s more the technical almost theory side really that I don’t mind
having help with but regularly I very much like to work by myself with
composition.
Formal instruction was also used as a means of students being able to identify and
label the processes that they were already using as well as learn new or more
efficient ways in which to use them.
Jono
but then having started with the university study, and actually studying
composition you learn terms like stem material so how composers have said
well here’s an idea here’s a statement, let’s chop it up into bits and let’s
rearrange it let’s mix it with that fragment lets try and put it against itself or put
it backwards or upside down.
Alyssa
Perhaps if I didn’t speak to someone about it I wouldn’t know that it was called
permutating but I kind of aurally heard and saw that.
Self-discovery
Particularly in analysis tasks, students expressed a desire to discover things for
themselves. They didn’t want to have a teacher just tell them but wanted to look
through and draw their own conclusions.
41
Nathan
I had two teachers before this that I used to study one on one with. We did a lot
of analysis. But one on one analysis so it’s different, where the teacher would
get me to go through and find patterns in the work. And then my assignment
was then to go home and reproduce that pattern but in a different way, or go
home and analyse the whole piece and say what’s intuition and what’s
structural if it is that way or if it’s all functionable. Something like that it’s
more yeah it’s just analysis really. So it’s not class analysis where “oh here,
this is that”, you’re making discoveries yourself.
This increased their sense of ownership and would allow for interaction with the
content.
Alyssa
There’s something about it when you go out and you do your own research
there is always something that you can’t learn from anyone else, something
that your mind goes “ooh this is a great idea. What can I do with this?” it’s not
something anyone can teach you I think.
Jono made a pertinent observation about the general learning preferences of
composers, for wanting to take ownership of learning and relate to the content, in his
interview whilst talking about Compositional Techniques and Analysis classes:
Compositional Techniques and Analysis is one that is probably mixed as well.
You’re studying different techniques and in that respect you’re definitely going
to treat things rationally. But because it’s a course designed for composers, and
composers who probably want to try and put their own spin on things, they will
probably also try and – I’m projecting here on other people, but from
experience - you’ll want to put your own spin on it. Which means that you’ll
want to think how can I relate to this technique and how can I make it work.
And something that’s functionally using these techniques but really is my own
expression of them. And that requires a bit of an intuitive approach.
Task Design
During interview discussions one of the common topics that came up in relation to
the learning of composition was the effects of different tasks set by their lecturers
and the students’ preferences for these tasks to be designed in certain ways. Nathan
42
talked about how particular assignments might make you work in a way that was less
natural:
… the way you think and learn is going to be the way you compose, I think. I
think? Yeah, I don’t imagine it could be any other way. Unless you were doing
an assignment where you had to do it a certain way but when I’m composing
for myself it’s different.
There was no parameters for the assignment so I got to decide it all. Had that
been a parameters assignment I don’t think I would have brought it in because
if you’re following rules then you’ve got to do specific things.
In many classes at university students are asked to engage in composition activities.
Many students, for example, had memories of being asked to write compositions
using a limited number of prescribed pitches by one of their first year lecturers. Bella
reported finding the activity good because it made her think through what she was
going to do with it but still allowed plenty of freedom.
…[one lecturer] last year he would sort of give us boundaries, like he gave us a
set, set of pitches that we could write for on cello and we could write however
we wanted but we were only allowed to use this set, set of pitches. And that
was really good because it meant that I had to have some kind of structure for
how I was going to use the pitches but it wasn’t like you must use them in this
way.
In a similar task Ellie saw the task as placing restrictions on her compositional
process but, rather than making her think more rationally as it did for Bella, she felt
that it helped to develop her intuitive processes.
… my teacher in first year, made us write a few one-minute or two-minute
compositions each week and they would just involve one pitch and he would
give us the instrumentation, just with one pitch you could change octaves but
that was it. And I found that really helped me. And then after a while as the
semester progressed he’d put two pitches in or three. … It was almost like an
epiphany really I was like “wow I don’t need to have so many notes in there to
make it sound interesting”. So that kind of did help me become more intuitive.
43
Another frequently mentioned learning task was that of Composition through
Improvisation classes. Several interview participants mentioned enjoying the
intuitive and collaborative nature of the tasks set.
Ellie
I think the most intuitive subject I’m doing at the moment is composition
through improvisation, that’s just “here you go play”. And I love that course I
think it’s great fun. Just because it’s complete freedom you can do whatever
you want. [The Lecturer] will give you a point to start from she’ll say like
“daisy” and you’ll have to play a piece about daisies, flowers or something.
But that is, I feel it is pure intuition.
Alyssa
The class that I do enjoy is impro class. It allows you to adjust your own
concepts of composition and apply them as well and allow for creativity and
working with others.
In their composition major classes students had a bit more freedom to set their own
parameters. So even though class tasks that involved set parameters and tasks were
accepted, freedom to work their own way was generally seen to be a positive thing
when writing major works.
Alyssa
I like the whole freedom thing, you can kind of pick your own style provided
it’s within your elective which sort of limits you to a certain extent but it’s not
really very limiting at all.
Jono
Generally I think it’s been very positive because I’ve tried different techniques.
The trial of different techniques is obviously something that’s encouraged.
44
Chapter 5 ~ Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate how composers’ compositional processes could be
described as rational or intuitive. Hopefully the study has led to a better
understanding of compositional processes and how student composers use different
thought processes when composing. The study also investigated composition
students’ preferences for learning and the learning activities that they found helpful
for learning composition.
Five individual cases were chosen from a sample of undergraduate composition
students at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music. To ensure that cases were chosen
with the highest possibility of contrast, interview participants were chosen according
to their results on the SOLAT youth form (Torrance, McCarthy & Kolesinski, 1988).
Through interviews that allowed for an in-depth exploration, the compositional
processes and learning preferences of participants were discussed.
Discussion of Findings
Rational and Intuitive compositional processes
Rational and intuitive processes of composition can be found at two levels of the
compositional process. Although the macro- and micro- processes involved in
composing are linked and influence each other, the rational and intuitive aspects for
each can be described and seen to be used differently.
At the macro-level composers worked through a number of stages between the initial
inspiration and the completed composition. Depending on the order and
45
distinctiveness of these stages composers’ macro-processes could be described as
sitting somewhere on the continuum between rational and intuitive. Composers
working rationally at this level had distinct stages that aligned sequentially with the
stages in the model whereas intuitive macro-processes involved jumping around the
model with stages occurring simultaneously.
On the other hand composers in this study used both rational and intuitive thought
processes at the micro-level. They would often use rational processes to make
decisions about some parameters and intuitive processes to make decisions about
others. It was also discovered that there was often a crossover of processes with
rational ideas being applied using intuition and composers who were using intuitive
processes feeling the need to analyse and justify what they were doing. In fact, the
study found that composers were consciously engaging in a balancing act to find a
combination of rationale and intuition that worked for them.
Parallels to Thinking Styles
Results from this study suggest that someone who is identified by SOLAT as having
a left-dominant profile that prefers to “discover systematically … and will sequence
ideas … to solve problems logically” (Torrance, 1988, p.21) would display a rational
approach to composing at the macro level. In the same way, someone who is
identified as having a right-dominant profile and prefers to “discover through
exploration … to solve problems intuitively” (Torrance, 1988, p.21) is more likely to
use intuitive processes.
46
The number of participants in this study was too small to be able to come to any
generalisations about a parallel between the thinking and learning style of a
composer and the processes they used when composing. At the macro-level the place
of each participant in this study on the continuum between rational and intuitive was
found to be similar to their place on the SOLAT scale. With more data from a greater
range of composers it may be possible to suggest that a composer’s general thinking
and learning style is reflected in their compositional processes.
Similarly at the micro-level it may be possible that individual composers are more
likely to use one set of thought processes than another or rely more heavily on one in
certain circumstances. Again, a study that investigated the processes of many more
composers, including composers at different stages of development, which looked at
their use of rational and intuitive thought processes in different circumstances, would
be needed to draw up trends.
Learning of composition
Regardless of the students’ thinking and learning styles or compositional processes
all students interviewed expressed the desire for their learning to be personal. This
sort of student-centred, individualised approach is one that is able to cater for
individual needs and allows the students space to explore ideas themselves and take
control of their own learning and development. The most obvious example of this is
their preference for learning in a one on one environment. Students expressed their
desires to work one on one because it allowed them to develop their individual style
by getting direct and relevant feedback from supervisors that were able to adjust to
individual needs.
47
Also because of the personal nature of composition learning, the students felt that
composition was not something that they could be taught by a teacher, it was
something that they had to learn themselves. Teachers were seen to have their place
in teaching the skills and tools as well as explaining and modelling different
techniques but the process of composition was something that the students developed
according to their own application of those skills and tools taught.
Linked to that idea is the preference for students to learn analysis by self discovery.
It was evident that most students were not averse to the idea of analysing pieces as a
means of studying composition but they wanted to be able to personalise it and work
things out for themselves. This preference of participants for self discovery is
consistent with the fact that the SOLAT results were weighted towards the right-
brain style of learning. A right-dominant student is one who “prefers open ended
assignments in which one can discover through exploration” (Torrance, 1988).
It is important to recognise that the findings of this study are based on the student
composers’ own descriptions of their thinking style, compositional processes and
preferred learning environments through the SOLAT measure and interview
techniques used. It can not be assumed that these are necessarily accurate
representations of what is actually occurring during the compositional process or
whether the preferred learning activities are the most effective strategies for
promoting the learning of composition. The findings are, however, a useful account
of student perceptions of compositional processes and learning environments.
48
Implications
One of the outcomes of this study was the development of models of rational and
intuitive, micro- and macro- processes of composition. Not only are these a useful
tool for educators in understanding the processes that individuals use when
composing but the models presented may also be of use to composition students as
they try to better understand their own processes of composition. It must be noted
that these models were not designed to be a “how to” manual; they should not be
used as a step by step guide to writing a piece of music. Rather, the models can be
used to explain the existing processes being used by composers, helping them to
better understand the ways in which they are thinking and find more efficient ways
of working and finding the right balance between thought patterns.
Educators also need to recognise the personal and innate aspect of composition.
Where possible, particularly at a tertiary level, students should have the opportunity
to meet one on one with a teacher to discuss compositional ideas and processes they
are using and receive feedback. Students in this study have indicated that they prefer
teachers to provide them with the tools and skills they need to create music and
encourage them to explore their own styles and processes. One way to do this is
through open-ended tasks that prescribe a minimum number of processes or
parameters to be used. Along side these open-ended tasks, tasks that are highly
prescriptive may be used as a starting point or as a means for developing different
styles of thinking and provide students with new ways to find a balance of processes
in their own work.
49
Listening and analysis tasks are also useful learning experiences that teachers can
provide for their students. However, findings from this study show that students
prefer these activities to be more interactive and student-centred. Students should be
given the opportunity to self-discover concepts being taught and then to explore how
they can relate to the ideas presented. Again, these sorts of tasks are able to equip
students with tools and skills as well as provide them with ideas and give them an
insight into different compositional processes and ways of thinking used by more
experienced composers.
It is clear that the findings of this study are limited to the small number of
participants included and the particular institutionalised setting and experiences they
were involved in. However, many of the outcomes of the study are potentially
transferable to other situations and further study of a greater number of composers in
different settings and of different levels of development could explore these ideas
further.
The research could also be extended by investigating the way that individual
composers develop their own compositional processes over time and how this is
affected by the way that they are taught and the environments in which they are
learning. The findings of this study have the potential to change not only the way that
composition is learnt and taught, but also the way that composers view their own
compositional processes and ultimately the way that those composers continue to
develop their processes in the future.
50
References
Barrett, M. (2006). ‘Creative collaboration’: an “eminence” study of teaching and
learning in music composition. Psychology of Music, 34, 195-218.
Bell, C. & Cresswell, A. (1984). Personality differences among musical
instrumentalists. Psychology of Music, 12, 83-93.
Bennett, S. (1976). The Process of Musical Creation: Interviews with eight
composers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24, 3-13.
Burnard, P. (1995). Task design and experience in composition. Research Studies
in Music Education, 5, 32-46.
Burnard, P. & Younker, B. A. (2004). Problem-solving and creativity: insights
from students’ individual composing pathways. International Journal of
Music Education, 22, 59-76.
Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Chesson, D., Munday, R., Tunnell, J. W. & Windham, R. (1993). Hemispheric
Preferences for Problem Solving in a group of Music Majors and Computer
Science Majors. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 145-150.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide. Buckingham, England: Open
University Press.
Emmerson, S. (1989). Composing strategies and pedagogy. Contemporary Music
Review, 3, 133-144
Goncy, E. & Waehler, C. (2006). An empirical investigation of creativity and
musical experience. Psychology of Music, 34, 307-321.
51
Keinholz, A. & Hritzuk, J. (1986). Comparing students in architecture and
medicine: findings from two new measures of cognitive style. Psychological
Reports, 58, 823-830.
Kemp, A. (1981). The personality structure of the musician: II. Identifying a
profile of traits for the composer. Psychology of Music, 9, 69-75.
Kemp, A. (1982). The personality structure of the musician: IV. Incorporating
group profiles into a comprehensive model. Psychology of Music, 10, 3-6.
Kemp, A. (1996). The musical temperament: psychology and personality of
musicians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, B. E. & Schmidt, C. P. (1991). Listeners’ response to music as a function
of personality type. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 311-321.
Moore, B. R. (1990). The relationship between curriculum and learner: music
composition and learning style. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38,
24-38.
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and
research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on
thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Suchor, V. (1977). The influence of personality composition in applied piano
groups. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 171-183.
Swanwick, K. & Tillman, J. (1986). The Sequence of Musical Development: A
study of children’s composition. British Journal of Music Education, 3, 305-
339.
52
Torrance, E. P. (1988). Style of Learning and Thinking (SOLAT®): Administrator’s
Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P., McCarthy, B. & Kolesinski, M. T. (1988). Style of Learning and
Thinking (SOLAT®): Youth form. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. & Mourad, S. (1979). Role of Hemisphericity in Performance on
Selected Measures of Creativity. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 44-55.
Torrance, E. P., Reynolds, C. R., Reigel, T. & Ball, O. (1977). Your style of
learning and thinking, Forms A and B. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 563-
573.
Wiggins, J. (1994). Children’s strategies for solving compositional problems with
peers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 232-252.
Zalanowski, A. (1986). The effects of listening instructions and cognitive style on
music appreciation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 45-53.
Zalanowski, A. (1990). Musical appreciation and hemisphere orientation: Visual
versus verbal involvement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38,
197-205.
Zhang, L-F. (2002a). Thinking styles and modes of thinking: Implications for
education and research. Journal of Psychology, 136(3), 245-261.
Zhang, L-F. (2002b). Thinking Styles: their relationships with modes of thinking
and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 331-348.
60
Appendix 5: Interview Outline
Interview Questions:
Can you explain to me what you think your thinking style is?
Would you describe it as Rational, Intuitive, or something else?
How do you prefer to learn composition?
What specific activities have you participated in that you thought helped
you with your compositions or were not helpful?
How would you describe your compositional style in terms of the way that you
think when you’re composing?
You were asked to bring along a copy of a recent composition and any pre-comp
and drafts that might belong with it. Can we have a look at what you’ve brought?
How typical is this composition of your compositional processes?
How much time did you spend in pre-compositional activities?
How did you learn the processes you used?
Were you working with a teacher on this and how did that affect your
processes?
How do you think that the way you compose is effected by the ways that you think
and learn that we were talking about before (if at all)?
Do you think that the way you are taught composition at the Con suits the way you
like to think, learn and compose? In what ways?
Are there students in your class that you’ve noticed think in the opposite
way to you?
Are there some subjects that you take that you think are better suited to
your learning style?
Do you think the teaching staff are open to students who think in different
ways?